Last week, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov made a fervent pitch for India to be a permanent member at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), a demand that has been growing over the years and resonates with the new geopolitical realities of the world. By openly backing India and Brazil for permanent membership of the UNSC, Lavrov touched upon a question that has lingered for decades and has now become the need of the hour: Does the United Nations, in its current structure, truly reflect today’s geopolitical realities?
Eighty years have passed since the UN was conceived in the aftermath of the Second World War. The victors of World War II — the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China — made themselves permanent members of the UNSC with veto power. At the time, this arrangement reflected the world order but today it is out of sync with the new realities of a world moving towards multipolarity.
India’s case for permanent membership is not only strong, it is undeniable. With a population of 1.4 billion, the world’s fastest-growing major economy, a nuclear power, and a leading voice in forums such as the G20 and BRICS, India is not just a regional player but a powerful voice for the Global South. Its contributions to UN peacekeeping missions, its leadership in climate negotiations, and its role as a bridge between the developed and developing worlds underline the legitimacy of its claim.
The Global South is no longer content with symbolic recognition. Countries across Asia, Africa, and Latin America are demanding real power in global decision-making. The rise of groupings like BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) is evidence of this “Global South awakening.” It is a pushback against a Western-dominated system where a handful of Western powers dictate terms on issues ranging from wars to sanctions. Often these decisions are taken in order to sustain their power and assert their dominance rather than an intent to resolve the crisis.
The UNSC, which is the only UN arm that can stop wars or bring about meaningful change, is paralysed by the veto power, making it ineffective in dealing with the issues of the world. This imbalance is evident in the Council’s inability to respond effectively to contemporary crises like war in Gaza, the prolonged conflict in Ukraine, or the looming spectre of climate-induced instability.
If it remains locked in a mid-twentieth-century power matrix, it will increasingly be bypassed by regional alliances and alternative coalitions. True resistance to reform will remain fierce but it needs to be pursued with vigour. The existing permanent members are unlikely to dilute their privileges. But the pressure of history is mounting. As Lavrov’s remarks show, calls for reform are no longer coming only from the aspirants but from within the established order itself. India’s permanent seat at the UNSC is not a question of if, but when.
